Intel has one here:
Slide #22 (numbers aren't on the presentation itself annoyingly, I just downloaded the PDF).
They claim the M3 is on their power curve. However, they use SpecInt for their performance metric and as usual they use their own Intel compiler to give themselves a huge advantage in that one test. You can see that on slide 20 comparing SpecInt with CB R24 and GB 6.3. So those results are kinda meaningless. Also on slide 22 they seemingly have the Elite 80 getting the same SpecInt MT performance as the base M3 when drawing 50W (which I cannot believe is accurate), but then draw the arrow from its performance/watt dot not to their own perf/W line and say "~40% lower power!" and have some note about "Intel Instrumented". This isn't explained as far as I can tell in the notes either on the bottom or at the end but maybe I missed it. Slide #22 is a very odd graph all around basically.
That's exactly what they're doing. They even say so themselves, explicitly, on the slide 19 about the Thread Director. Basically everything starts on the E-core only moves to the P-core if it actually has to. Which as you say, for something like watching video and other such tasks is perfectly fine! And is a huge improvement over where Intel was before so Dave2D's results from
@Jimmyjames' video hold with respect to that. But yeah it doesn't tell us much about perf/W under real load and Intel's own results with respect to the latter are a bit sketchy to say the least.
Right. I mean look, using just enough as necessary is smart, Apple’s frequency ramping is fairly cautious for example relative to AMD and Intel arguably per chips n cheese (but they also have higher IPC, and can sustain it when they do boost! You can just run a 5W M1/2/3 ST indefinitely!)
But even then, you will expose this with MT or real responsiveness with battery life — and in a counterfactual with better cores, you could get the same battery life and more responsiveness or the opposite. So it’s not like this is “free” when comparing vs other vendors, who could just do the exact same thing for even more battery or fewer perf. Complaints.
Arm compatibility is one thing for now but from an engineering POV it’s telling that on N4 with a pretty small die that’s also very scalable - with just straight P cores and a first iteration — Qualcomn really isn’t far behind.
I mean, lol…. The Teams example is actually more representative of both the CPU and video decode + AI all in one, the AI stuff is easier to game with software stacks. [see pic 1]
And here [see pic 2 and 3]
It’s just fine, nothing amazing and really underwhelming in context. They are throwing more for less and a less scalable architecture and it against shows us this is the Intel way, it always has been. It also shows again memory on package isn’t a wonder for this stuff (though you could argue that Intel would do even worse without it which is true but by how much? Either way, I think Qualcomm will be fine without it for most segments short of <8W tablets, not dogging it though and maybe they’ll do it eventually)
At risk of being too grandiose, IIRC I predicted as much about LNL to you all here, said they might be ahead even but not by enough and it would be disappointing relative to the price/cost/effort, the caveat is that AMD is more substantially behind on battery life and Arm pains + QC GPU woes give Intel a fighting chance for this year.
But I don’t think that matters long term, and Arm compat + QC GPUs will be fixed. Even if Intel caught up, their profits are going to go down, because substitute goods via QC et. Al and AMD too are here. Not a great outlook.
